Friday, September 21, 2012

Francis Watson's Introduction and Summary on the composition of a fake Gospel-fragment

I am grateful to Prof. Francis Watson for following up his earlier article, The Gospel of Jesus' Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed, with a piece providing an introduction and summary, which will be particularly helpful for non-specialists:

8 comments:

The apparent dependence on Matt. 28:20 is important because Matthew bases the polished Trinitarian formula in 28:19 on the earlier and cruder Triniarian formula in Thom. 44 and bases the "in heaven or on earth" in 28:18 on Thom. 44.3b. So, whoever wrote this fragment not only used Thomas as a source, but was attracted to Matt. 28:20 precisely because, this person knew, it is immediately adjacent to where Matthew likewise used Thomas as a source. Since, to my knowledge, not a single modern scholar believes that Matthew used Thomas as a source, it appears that no modern scholar wrote this fragment and, therefore, it is probably genuine--and likely written not long after Matthew wrote his gospel. Frank McCoy

Since the author of fragment used Coptic versions of Thomas and Matthew, I retract the likelihood of it being written soon after Matthew--more likely, late 2nd century CE. But I stand by the contention that author knew of Matthew using Thomas as a source because Luke, similarly, knew that Matthew used Thomas as a source. See this 4 line schema that begins with Thom. 32 and ends with Thom 33.1:1 Thom. 32//Matt. 5:14b2 Thom. 33.2-3//Matt. 5:15//Luke 11:33//Luke 8:16//Mark 4:213 Matt. 10:26b//Luke 12:2//Thom. 5.1b-2a//Luke 8:17//Mark 4:224 Matt. 10:27b//Luke 12:3b//Thom. 33.1This is held together by these links:1. lines 1 & 2 by Thom. 32//Matt. 5:14b and Thom. 33.2-3//Matt. 5:152. lines 2 & 3 by Luke 8:16//Mark 4:21 and Luke 8:17//Mark 4:223. lines 3 & 4 by Matt. 10:27a//Luke 12:2 and Matt. 10:27b//Luke 12:3b.

This is a Lukan creation since it is made possible only by the Lukan doublets of 8:16//11:33 and 8:17//12:2. So, he used Mark, Matthew and Thomas as sources and knew that Matthew based Matt. 5:14b-15 on Thom. 32-33.

Is it just me or does professor Watson cite an incomplete version of line 4? Karen King's paper has (pardon my transcription) PEDE IC NAY TAHIME (which is what I see on the fragment as well) while prof. Watson's only has PEDE IC TAHIME. That use of the N+pronoun struck me as very GThom - I would expect PEDAF instead of PEDE and/or NWOY instead of NAY in canonical gospels.

According to Bauckham, Gathercole has tentatively connected line 6 with Thom. 45.3. This fits with idea that, the author knew, Matthew used Thomas as a source a/c Matt. 12:34b-35 is based on Thom. 45.2-3.

I suggest this scenario: when writing line 6, author had his/her copy of Thomas opened to 45.3, using it as a source. (S)he knew that Matthew had used Thom. 45.2-3 as a source for 12:34b-35 and, also seeing Thom. 44 adjacent to 45, (s)he was reminded of how Matthew had also used 44 as a source for Matt. 28:18-19. His/her thoughts thusly now on Matt. 28:18-19, (s)he was reminded of Matt. 28:20 and decided to use it as a source for line 7.

Where can we find the first unrevised versions of Francis Watson’s papers (Sept. 20, 21, 22, 2012, revised Sept. 26) ? On http://markgoodacre.org/, Watson.pdf and Watson2.pdf are the same file, Watson1.pdf doesn’t exist.